New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has learned a lot from her challenger, Wendy Long. No, not much about the race, where she already has a comfortable 30 point lead. Instead, she’s realizing how much work needs to be done to get more women running for office, especially women who don’t stump for the religious right.

“[I]f we had 50 percent of women in Congress, we would not be debating contraception,” she said at a fundraiser, according to The Washington Post. “We would be debating the economy, small business, jobs, national security — everything but.”

Gillibrand is using her massive fundraising prowess to focus on other women now–in this case Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Christie Vilsack in Iowa, and Val Demmings in Florida. If all three women won, it could make a massive change in the ratio not just of Republicans to Democrats in the House, but from male to female as well.

It would also change the tone of the House, too. Vilsack is challenging Republican Steve King, author of the anti-“robo-skype abortions” bill that he hoped would cut off any expansion of telemed abortions, a procedure that would provide much greater and more affordable access to very early terminations for women in rural areas. Demmings is trying to unseat Congressman Daniel Webster, who is so far to the right that he believes divorce is only allowable if one spouse commits adultery, regardless of what other abuses may be going on in the marriage.

With men like these in the House, is it any wonder that so many people are focused on bringing in more women to run?

Anyone who has read a Wendy Long profile knows that one of her favorite activities is pitting her belief in religious freedom against most of the rest of the country’s belief that if a woman wants to use birth control, that’s just fine.

Now, she’s taking it a step further. She’s decided that not only is the religious right to deny people contraception one of the basic tenets of the country, but that soldiers sure didn’t fight wars so that women can have the pill.

Praising America’s warriors as defenders of the Constitution in one speech, Long goes on to say, “They didn’t die for what Kirsten Gillibrand is saying — for the right to force religious employers to pay for their employees’ contraception.”

“It wasn’t so that Kirsten Gillibrand and Barack Obama could regulate us with Health and Human Services regulations mandating that religious employers pay for their employees’ contraception,” she says in another address. “That isn’t why these guys died.”

Then again, since Long’s not a big fan of women serving (at least not in an active role) it’s unclear how in tune she is about what our military thinks in the first place, especially when it comes to reproductive rights. She’s mentioned nothing about the Shaheen Amendment, which would allow women in the military who have been raped to obtain abortions, but, as she has said she is “Pro-life from conception to natural death” so it seems safe to assume that she would force a raped female soldier to carry the pregnancy to term.

Soldiers have many reasons for fighting for our country, including the freedom of women to choose their own destinies, so for Long to suggest otherwise is ridiculous at best.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/05/gop-senate-candidate-wendy-long-says-soldier-dont-fight-so-you-can-have-pill/feed/1Wendy Long Wins GOP Nomination For New York Senate — What Does She Believe?http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/06/27/wendy-long-wins-gop-nomination-new-york-senate-what-does-she-believe/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wendy-long-wins-gop-nomination-new-york-senate-what-does-she-believe
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/06/27/wendy-long-wins-gop-nomination-new-york-senate-what-does-she-believe/#commentsWed, 27 Jun 2012 19:36:05 +0000The former Clarence Thomas clerk will now take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in November. But what are the differences between the two women?

]]>Wendy Long may have been the sound winner of the New York Republican primary, but when it comes to winning the senate seat away from Democrat Kristen Gillibrand, it’s going to be a much harder process.

Long, a New York attorney who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, came away from the primary with over 50 percent of the vote, a double digit lead over her next nearest competitor, Republican Congressman Bob Turner. But now that she is on to the general election, it may be harder for her to appeal to a state that is predominately liberal. She campaigned for the nomination on a platform that was pro-gun rights, anti-same-sex marriage and focused on the elimination of the federal deficit.

Her most conservative passion, however, appears to be for the judicial branch. Long worked closely with Judicial Crisis Network to advocate against “liberal” nominees to the bench. She still remains close with her conservative network, receiving an endorsement from the Susan B. Anthony List for her senate campaign back in April.

“There could not be a more clear contrast between longtime pro-life leader Wendy Long and EMILY’s List poster child Senator Gillibrand,” said Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Wendy understands that the only ‘war on women’ is the one being waged against women of faith and conscience by the Obama administration and their allies in Congress and the abortion lobby. She has boldly called on Senator Gillibrand to end the assault on Life, conscience, and religious liberty.”

“From her days as a Hill staffer to her time at Americans United for Life and her work on behalf of Supreme Court Justices who practice judicial restraint, Wendy has constantly been engaged in the fight for adherence to the Constitution and the right to Life laid out in the Declaration of Independence,” continued Dannenfelser. “We look forward to having her back on Capitol Hill and adding to the number of pro-life women in the Senate.”

Since winning the primary, though, even the SBA has tried to tone down the anti-choice rhetoric a bit to attempt to make Long appear a bit more moderate. Their statement on Long’s primary win is much less heavy on the anti-choice activism.

“Wendy is a remarkable advocate for women and families and we are thrilled with tonight’s victory,” said Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Not only does she provide an ideal contrast to the pro-abortion leadership of Senator Gillibrand, Wendy is an accomplished leader in her own right. A mother and successful career woman who even went on to clerk for the Supreme Court, Wendy has the broad-based appeal that New York voters are looking for.”

Long, too, is hoping that in the general election, New Yorkers won’t notice her record of attempts to limit the reproductive rights of women. The night she declared her candidacy, when pushed on her history of lobbying for judges who are inclined to fight a woman’s right to choose, Long hedged as much as possible before admitting she believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

Given her work opposing the appointment of left-leaning judges—which often comes back to Roe v. Wade and the interpretation of a right to privacy—I asked Long about her position on abortion, and the recent debate over contraception.

“It’s not an issue in this campaign, number one,” she said. “There is no issue that’s before us that’s relevant in this campaign.”

“I think there is a universal understanding among the legal community that Roe v. Wade was a very flawed legal decision,” she said. “It’s a horrible decision from a constitutional law standpoint, and even liberal law professors will tell you that.

“I believe that the issue of abortion should be left to the people to decide. The Constitution doesn’t mention the word abortion. So I think that’s what it’s really all about. And if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, nobody would even notice, because the states are legislating their own laws about abortion, completely independent.”

If Roe was an issue that was best left to the states, does that mean the same for birth control? Was Griswold v. Connecticut wrong as well? Long doesn’t speak to that specifically, but has made it clear that she would be another yes vote when it comes to the Blunt amendment allowing employers to opt out of providing birth control coverage in their insurance plans if they find it morally objectionable.

Gillibrand was a strong vote against an employer being allowed to refuse contraceptive coverage under the guise of “moral objection,” stating religious beliefs should not be able to trump a woman’s right to control her own body. During the debate over the Blunt amendment and the White House mandate for no co pay birth control, Gillibrand stated:

“While I remain dumbfounded that in the year 2012 we still have to fight over birth control, I commend the White House for its final rule that adheres to a core principle that the power to decide whether or not each individual woman uses contraception should be with that woman – not with her boss. This common sense rule will ensure that every single woman in America has access to the full range of preventive health care while respecting the teachings of religious institutions.

“This debate has been just the latest political overreach by politicians to roll back access to birth control and undermine women’s health. It is a fight that continues today in the U.S. Senate with outrageous legislation by Senators Blunt and Rubio that would take away women’s rights by allowing any employer to refuse health care services on religious grounds. We will not stand for these attempts to undermine the ability of women to make their own decisions. If my Republican colleagues want to continue to take this issue head on, we stand ready to oppose any attacks launched against women’s rights and women’s health.”

Meanwhile, Long is actively participating in the “Fornight of Freedom” event sponsored by Catholics who oppose insurance coverage of no co-pay birth control, and claim that the Administration is denying Catholics the right to practice freedom of religion. Long had scathing words for those who would “force” Catholics to support birth control.

“We are in the midst of two weeks in which all of us American Catholics have been called by the U.S. Bishops to pray and work for religious freedom, particularly the freedom of conscience of Catholic educators, health care workers, and others whose First Amendment right to freely exercise their faith has been trampled upon by Senator Gillibrand and President Obama,” said Long.

“I will not let Kirsten Gillibrand off the hook on this one. Not only is her action harmful to the Catholic Church and practicing Catholics, it is an affront to all free citizens who defend the truths of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, that all men are created equal, that every human person is equal in the dignity and value of her human life, and that every citizen in America has an equal right to freely exercise her faith.

“Senator Gillibrand and President Obama think some citizens are more equal than others. This is clearly wrong. We Catholics are resolved in these two weeks to defend our commitment to religious freedom and equality for all,” Long said.

Long states that issues of choice and reproductive freedom won’t be something that will matter to the voters in November. “Of course, there’s a certain segment of the far left to whom these kind of issues appeal,” Long said in an interview in May. “Who care about contraception and think that the world revolves around that but I think that mainstream women of both parties and independents are much more concerned about jobs and the economy and taxes and regulation.”

But considering Long’s active participation in limiting a woman’s right to control her own body, both prior to and after pregnancy, voters feel that reproductive health might be a very important issue in November, despite Long’s assurances otherwise.